campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Campaigns Wikia talk:Policy
Is a month of debate enough time? Chadlupkes 18:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC) :I think it depends on how visible the article is. Maybe it's time for a Community Portal where we can encourage users to participate in the important decisions. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 19:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC) ::Right now it seems we're setting up a complicated infrastructure when we have little content and few users. I think we should worry about expanding in the main space rather than setting up a complicated organization that few people will care about, compared to the regular articles and forums. It's like making a huge taxonomy (like for wikispecies), and having only 20 species on which to apply it. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 19:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC) For the Privacy Policy, could we change the link at the bottom to this? It is the official privacy policy. Redirects don't work cross-wiki. I guess it'd have to go to the developers. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 04:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Is consensus the right word? :I may have missed it somewhere, but could someone explain to me what a consensus vote is? According to my understanding of the terms, that's an oxymoron. User:singingwithin ::You're probably right. We're trying to keep things between a general consensus and a formal vote, at least until a decision needs to be made between two possibilities. Can you think of a better term? Chadlupkes 02:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC) :::I raised the same quibble on the 3RR talk page. Why not just call it a vote plain and simple? Or maybe a poll if it's nonbinding/informal? The way I interpret "a general concensus" from it's use around the wikia, I'm getting the sense that it means something like "an informal yet binding community opinion". Which is kinda scary to me as I'm not sure how that's much different from "whatever the charismatic leader wants" which, from experience, is a good/efficient way to do things... until it causes a schism. - JenniferForUnity 16:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Final Tally How will the votes be tallied? So far the winner has been pretty clear, but does a policy require a majority of approvals (more than 50%), or more approvals than disapprovals (more then 50%, ignoring abstentions)? What if the plurality of voters abstain? I think a policy should require more than 50% (not ratified by a tie, whether abstentions are counted in the total or not), but what if we get a tie in a dispute resolution? Do the admins get tiebreaking votes? We need to address these issues before they come up. --whosawhatsis? 00:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC) :Admins have votes just like everyone else. If a vote has a majority of approve, it's approved. I can go either way on pluralities, although I'm inclined to say that the highest vote number wins. That comes from my background here in the US where pluralities win regardless of the situation. What do others think? Chadlupkes 00:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC) ::But not all votes in the US are simple pluralities. There are votes (like constitutional amendments) that require 2/3, and others like the presidential election that require a majority regardless of the number of options. I'm kinda inclined to say that policies and admins must be approved by a majority of voters, but that would make an abstention the same as a disapproval. As for dispute resolutions, I'd probably say majority ignoring abstentions. In any case, I think that a tie for policies and admins should be counted as disapproval, and ties in dispute resolutions should be broken among admins. --whosawhatsis? 01:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC) ::: This is a very interesting discussion. :::First of all lets make a list with all possible decisions rules. :::I think that a decision rule should be binded to every Vote, it in order for the voters to know, before casting their vote, the method that is going to be used to extract the result from the Vote. This proposed decision rule could either be voted by the voters and having the extracted decision regarding the decision rule beeing compatible with the proposed decision rule (for example, in order for the 51% rule to be choosed, 51% of the voters must propose that rule) or ,more simply, the decision rule could be decided by the person who proposes the Vote. In the second case, and if the voters disagree with the decision rule, they may abstain from the Vote and in that way the Vote will not be able to reach the minimum participation required. :::On what it concerns the minimum participation required, I think this also must be binded to the Vote, and the voters opinion should be asked what they think the minimum participation should be. Then, by using the already binded decision rule, we can decide the minimum participation that is required in order to be legitimate to decide about the issue the Vote poses. ::: Finnaly I think that it is not rational for all Votes to expire after a predefined time periond. Not all issues have the same importance. The expiration of a Vote should be associated to the minimum participation required. Votes that have no participation they never expire and no decision is extracted by them. This may be considered a problem by some people, but we can solve that problem by simply having the ability to sort the Votes ordered by participation. :::Iasson 09:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC) ::::I'm not sure I caught all of that, but I see big problems with what did make sense. Allowing the person proposing a vote to decide rules of that vote such as how it is counted, how long it runs, minimum participation, etc. is a HUGE invitation to manipulate the system. ::::: I think you didnt caught what I said. What I am proposing is not a invitation to manipulate the system, it is the reverse. Thats what exactly I am trying to solve. Look at what you have already done, you have decided the rules of the voting procedure, and you started voting for policies without asking the rest of the voters if they agree with that rules. So who is unintentionally trying to manipulate? Iasson 08:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC) ::::These practices MUST be standardized to avoid this type of manipulation. I have no problem with allowing policies to include standards for their own ratification more strenuous than that standard (this policy will only be valid upon 2/3 vote including X or more people...), but such clauses are generally unnecessary and should be avoided. Likewise, variable minimum participation levels would only serve as a means for older/more active members to exercise tyranny over the newer/less active. ::::: Standarized? Who, how many people, and for how long are about to decide for those standards? In case we put the standards to a Vote, who is about to decide the rules of the Vote? Even if we manage to agree, and we standarize the rules of voting, this will not make sense for all votes. I firmly believe that the subject of a Vote is tottaly binded to the rules of voting, thats why voters should be allowed to express their opinion for the rules too. Not all subjects of Votes have the same importance, and there should be noone that should have the authority to decide what Vote is important and what is not. Iasson 08:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC) ::::::You may have a point that the rules for voting should be nailed-down in a policy themselves, but in the absence of such a policy and in light of an apparently unanimous consensus (until you arrived) on all of the aspects of voting that have not yet appeared in a policy proposal, I think the past votes have been fine without one. I am strongly opposed to the pointless bureaucracy, as well as the difficult to understand and often grammatically-incorrect language, that you propose adding to the process. --whosawhatsis? 20:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC) ::::Also, I think votes should not expire. A policy, once enacted, should remain in effect until removed by conscious effort, including another vote. If 10 people vote a policy in, then the next 1000 people to join all disagree, they can vote to remove it. The added bureaucracy of automatic expiration of policies (and especially of individual votes) is insanely over-complicated and if there are any problems that it would solve (I don't see any), it would create far more. --whosawhatsis? 20:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC) ::::: Thats correct, I am not proposing all policies to expire. What I propose is to have some policies to expire in a short time period, while other policies should be defined to expire after 75 years, a period which is the lifetime of a human beeing and should be considered as the maximum expiration period. I think it does not make sense for someone to propose a 75 years long standing policy without giving to the voters the chance to re-vote. Iasson 08:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Purpose of this wiki Folks this is getting ridiculous! This wiki is about campaigns and political issues. It is not intended to be a playground for policy makers and people who like to vote on a daily basis. Recently by far the most edits have been on policy-related pages. It is not necessary to spend this much effort on creating policies including policies about things that haven't ever occurred yet. I'm tempted to propose policies that someone who has not already contributed X amount to articles may not propose or vote on policies, or maybe we should have a policy limiting the number of policies or amendments that someone could propose. However, that would be counter to my point, and some people wouldn't recognize the irony, so I won't. While I will not propose any rules around this, but I ask that people please consider posting some content to actual articles and make that a higher priority than creating policies. Please consider if all these policies are necessary to further the mission of the Wikia. Thank you for reading this. --CocoaZen 21:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC) : I do not agree with you. Creating policies is a high priority. If you think that this wiki is not intended to be a playground for policy makers and people who like to vote on a daily basis, create a policy about that, and lets vote for it. Iasson 21:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC) :There is an unofficial poll in my talk page, regarding the Maximum policy proposals. Feel free to vote there, or even better propose this to become an official policy. Iasson 21:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC) ::I intend to follow my own request and focus on content. ::Would you please provide some basis or reason for your statement that "Creating policies is a high priority."? ::--CocoaZen 22:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC) :::: This wiki is getting ridiculous simply because there are no policies capable to stop the drollery. Thats why creating correct policies is a high priority. Iasson 22:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC) :::: If you dislike people who like to vote on a daily basis, then PEP or PVP is designed for you. Vote for it, and policies will not change very fast, neither amendments will be allowed everyday. Then, in your policy that is about to propose the maximum policy proposals per user and per month, propose also a high expiration value. Iasson 23:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC) :I agree that we are far too focused on policies at the moment, especially considering the level of bureaucracy that some of these proposals would create, but based on the conflicts that have already arisen, I believe that it is important to get some of these policies in place, so that future conflicts can be dealt with in a timely manner when they do come up. --whosawhatsis? 22:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Let this be enough for now. I really want to end these and get on with the real work. After the first of the year, let's not submit any new policy suggestions unless we really need them. They're a distraction. Chadlupkes 00:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC) No Personal Attacks Comment moved to Campaigns_Wikia_talk:No_personal_attacks Policy votes are at an end Look, if people disagree, please post comments here. But I had enough of the policy votes back in December. We don't need more votes, and we don't need more policies. We need content. I'm going to let the current votes finish, then I'm going to lock the policy page. The policy debates basically killed this site, and I'm not going to open that Pandora's box again unless there is a really good reason to do so. Chadlupkes 14:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC) :Yes! Full support. Thank you for making this decision. And now back to the content and purpose... -- CocoaZen 15:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC) ::Support too. But lets do it organised and lets follow the rules. I hate anarchy, I also hate when someone decides against the rules. What you are proposing confilts with the existing voting procedure policy which states : "Conflicting policies should not be allowed to be in effect concurrently, but in the case of a conflict, the older policy takes precedence unless the newer specifically addresses the applicable interpretation of the other. Otherwise, the proposal must include the amendment/repeal of the older policy.". So your proposition has to pass as an amendment/repeal of the voting procedure policy. In case your amendment passes (which is the more likely to happen) you can lock the policy pages. Iasson 16:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC) ::Ok, I'll set up the page. :the policy debates basically killed this site. I dont think this is true. I think we should search for other reasons in order to explain why this site has not as many contributors as we wanted to. Iasson 16:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC) ::That was probably too harsh. What the site needs is regular contributions and promotion on the blogs. I have heard from people who were too frustrated with the policy debates to want to bother building. Chadlupkes 16:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)